This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

Originally Posted by cpwill

My bet is that he tried to, and they insisted he provide them with a reason.

No, we have laws against such things. They are no more or less stringent than any other. That being said, those laws, to the extent that they try to create a positive right to other peoples' labor or stuff in violation of their religious convictions, are wrong.

Considering he said himself that it was his "policy" not to provide for same sex weddings, I doubt they needed to insist he give them a reason.

And we disagree on what the laws should be. I see it as important to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and is able to live in our country as free and well as they can that they are given a fair chance by those doing business with them without regard to their race, gender, religion, etc. barring them from service. The business owners choose to do business with the public, then they must also choose to do business with the whole public without regard to characteristics that have no impact on their business dealings from a reasonable person standpoint.

IF you have an issue doing business with one particular person for a reason that deals with that person, that is one thing, but if you refuse to do business with anyone that fits a particular type just because you feel you shouldn't have to or don't like those type of people without any way of showing how they harm you/your business (or have a recognizable potential to harm you/your business), then that harms society. We are not self-sufficient individuals as a whole within the US. I doubt this will change anytime soon without some major loss of lives occurring. That means that we are reliant on others who own any business being willing to do business with others regardless of their personal feelings against those groups of people.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

Originally Posted by roguenuke

Considering he said himself that it was his "policy" not to provide for same sex weddings, I doubt they needed to insist he give them a reason.

unless we happen to have a transcript of the conversation itself, we don't know whether or not he volunteered or they asked. Either way is irrelevant, as what is at stake is whether or not he should be forced to violate his religious principles.

And we disagree on what the laws should be. I see it as important to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and is able to live in our country as free and well as they can that they are given a fair chance by those doing business with them without regard to their race, gender, religion, etc. barring them from service.

Whereas I would argue that individual liberty is more important than equality of result. We may indeed have come to an a priori disagreement here.

The business owners choose to do business with the public, then they must also choose to do business with the whole public without regard to characteristics that have no impact on their business dealings from a reasonable person standpoint.

Would you support the right of the Westboro Baptist Church folks to target gay printers and force them to make and sell signs reading "God Hates Fags"?

IF you have an issue doing business with one particular person for a reason that deals with that person, that is one thing, but if you refuse to do business with anyone that fits a particular type just because you feel you shouldn't have to or don't like those type of people

That is not what is at issue here. Had they gone their for (for example) any other product that the bakery offered, they would have purchased them without problem. This case was not about refusing to sell to a type of people, it was about refusing to take part in a particular ceremony.

That means that we are reliant on others who own any business being willing to do business with others regardless of their personal feelings against those groups of people.

That is true only in a monopoly situation. I would agree with forcing monopolies (the state, for example) to sell to any and all who come with the cash, with few reasonable exceptions (if, for example, the state sold guns at auction, I would agree with not selling them to felons, or if it sold cars at auction, not selling them to people who have court injunctions forbidding them to drive or people who are under the age of being able to drive) where interest can be demonstrated.

But there is no monopoly in cake-making. The couple in question was not reliant on this bakery to make them a wedding cake.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

Then he should have simply said he couldn't take the job instead of giving them a reason why not.

Actually, on reflection, this is interesting. Dishonesty would have allowed him to escape censure.

It brings to mind the effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was nominally signed to end discrimination against the disabled in the workforce, and instead ended up increasing discrimination against the disabled in the workforce, because it increased the risks associated with doing business with the disabled. If businesses have to live in fear that hiring or working for or with or contracting with homosexuals will increase their risk of suit due to a pattern of law that seeks aggressively to punish slights, real or imagined... I wonder if we will actually see an increase in RW discrimination against them. Hm.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

Originally Posted by roguenuke

The guy is the one who got pissy about it. It shouldn't matter. He in no way had to attend the event. He only had to sell them a cake for a party. Is the party the actual marriage? Pretty sure it isn't. It is a false claim of religious beliefs.

He "had" to sell a cake to them? He didn't want to sell them the cake celebrating marriage between members of the same sex, though they could have bought anything else from the shop.

The government is now telling people that they must sell goods they don't wish to sell, that they must buy goods they don't wish to buy, and make illegal foods that are commonplace among the American people. Don't see anything wrong with this?

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

He "had" to sell a cake to them? He didn't want to sell them the cake celebrating marriage between members of the same sex, though they could have bought anything else from the shop.

The government is now telling people that they must sell goods they don't wish to sell, that they must buy goods they don't wish to buy, and make illegal foods that are commonplace among the American people. Don't see anything wrong with this?

The government has said this for quite some time. It is actually a good portion of anti-discrimination laws. You must do business with people you may wish otherwise not to when you own a business open to the public. I see a bigger issue with someone putting their bias against others for something that shouldn't matter over their agreement to do business with others.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

Originally Posted by roguenuke

The government has said this for quite some time. It is actually a good portion of anti-discrimination laws. You must do business with people you may wish otherwise not to when you own a business open to the public. I see a bigger issue with someone putting their bias against others for something that shouldn't matter over their agreement to do business with others.

The owner was willing to do business with them, he just didn't want to bake a cake that went against his religious beliefs. Forcing someone to bake a cake they don't want to bake, or decorate, or labor at, is not a good precedent for any free society.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

I am unaware that the bakery in question ever attempted to use force or coercion or the threat of either to control or punish the actions of the couple in question. Perhaps you can link to that.

Force or coercion? No, they were simply exercising their rights to free speech and association, and their economic freedom. And they were exercising their right to file lawsuits when someone breaks the law.

You are imputing motivation that you literally have no chance of realistically knowing. All he did was not want to take the job.

So are you.

He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

Force or coercion? No, they were simply exercising their rights to free speech and association, and their economic freedom.

On the contrary, they were seeking to forbid others the right to free association.

And they were exercising their right to file lawsuits when someone breaks the law.

The highest form of Law in the United States is the Constitution of the United States of America, which enshrines in its' first Amendment the fact that individual religious liberty and conscience are protected. Federal or State Statutes are annulled to the extent that they violate the Constitution.

So are you.

On the contrary - we know what the couple in question wanted to do because they then went and did it.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

He "had" to sell a cake to them? He didn't want to sell them the cake celebrating marriage between members of the same sex, though they could have bought anything else from the shop.

The government is now telling people that they must sell goods they don't wish to sell, that they must buy goods they don't wish to buy, and make illegal foods that are commonplace among the American people. Don't see anything wrong with this?

my bet would be that they really don't. There is a real belief among many on the left that having government make your decisions for you is better because government will make wiser decisions, and that individual liberties do not outweigh political correctness.